1 2025:CGHC:29536 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 996 of 2017 Tirath Chaudhary S/o Shri Krishna Chaudhary Aged About 27 Years R/o North Jhagrakhand Near Railway Crossing, Police Station Jhagrakhand, Tehsil Manendragarh, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Mala @ Geeta Chaudhary W/o Shri Tirath Chaudhary Aged About 25 Years R/o Mohaarpara, Police Station And Tehsil Manendragarh, District – Koriya, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 01.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, learned counsel the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 01.09.2017 passed by the learned Family Court, Manendragarh, District – Koriya (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 69/2016, whereby the learned Family Court, Manendragarh, District – Koriya, allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondents, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per month to the respondent. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 3. The facts, in brief, is that an application under section 125 of the CrPC was filed by the non-applicant alleging that she is the wife of the applicant and marriage between them was solemnized on 25.04.2012, thereafter the applicant started ill treatment with the non-applicant then she left the house and started living at her paternal house with her parents, and also lodged an F.I.R. against the applicant which was later compromised between the parties after the mediation of both the families, later on again she left the house and went to her parental house and as she has no source of income and she is unable to maintain herself therefore she may be awarded maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month from the applicant whose monthly income is about Rs. 20,000/-. 4. The applicant has filed the reply and denied the contention of the application filed by the respondents. The learned Family Court after recording the evidence of the parties passed the impugned order, whereby the learned Family Court allowed the application of the respondents and directed to the applicant to pay the amount of Rs. 2,500/- per month to the respondent. The impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is without any appreciation of facts, and material available on record only on the basis of arbitrary manner, thus, the impugned order is completely illegal. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. It is further submitted that the respondent No.1 without any sufficient reason have left the house of the applicant and voluntarily living separately from him. Therefore, she is not entitled to get the maintenance from the applicant as per the provisions of Section 125(4) of CrPC. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse 3 and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar